Techdirt. Stories filed under "tying"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "tying"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:31:57 PSTCablevision Files Antitrust Suit Against Viacom For Forced Bundling Of Crappy TV ChannelsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130226/15114522124/cablevision-files-antitrust-suit-against-viacom-forced-bundling-crappy-tv-channels.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130226/15114522124/cablevision-files-antitrust-suit-against-viacom-forced-bundling-crappy-tv-channels.shtmlfiled an antitrust lawsuit against Viacom for forcing it to carry the channels it doesn't like, specifically channels like Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic. Cablevision has to carry those if it wants the channels that people actually watch, like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

Oddly, we can't show you the full lawsuit, because it's been filed under seal. You see that sometimes when it involves contractual disputes, since the terms in the contract are secret. However, it's rather unfortunate that they couldn't file the document with the secret stuff redacted. At this time, we just have Cablevision's side of the story via their press announcement. The key argument is that this is an illegal "tying" arrangement. Of course, just last year we had a ruling in a similar lawsuit, in which cable customers filed a similar suit, which flopped in court.

Cablevision may have a difficult time making this claim succeed as well. As Viacom quickly pointed out in response, the bundling is not "forced." Pay TV companies can choose individual channels without other channels, it's just that the price is higher. So, they argue, the bundling actually leads to discounts. Whether or not anyone actually believes that claim may become a key question in the lawsuit. If I had to do an initial handicapping, though, I'd guess that Viacom wins this one, even if Cablevision can make Viacom (and others) sweat for a bit. In the long run, however, this is still about fighting the last battle. The idea of TV channels is an increasingly obsolete concept. This fight is over the way video content was distributed. Not the way it will be distributed in the future.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>when-big-companies-fighthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130226/15114522124Mon, 5 May 2008 08:16:00 PDTWill Psystar Represent A Key Case Concerning Enforceability Of EULAs?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/1834591016.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/1834591016.shtmlquestions about how legit this offer was. After all, when Steve Jobs returned to Apple years back, he killed off all licensing deals that allowed any kind of Mac clones. However, the company has been showing off the clones it's created. Now, the questions are all about whether or not Psystar's actions are legal. The company (of course) says it is legal, and that it's buying a legal copy of the operating system and installing it on PC hardware. However, the end user license agreement (EULA) includes the following:

"This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

That would seem to preclude what Psystar is doing. The News.com article above does an excellent job laying out the legal issues here. While the courts have found various clickthrough EULAs enforceable (even though no one -- including the companies themselves seem to read through them), it's possible that Psystar could attack the EULA from other directions. As the article notes, it could try to use the first sale doctrine (which allows you to resell copyrighted products you've bought) but that likely won't fly. What may be most effective (even if it's still a long shot under the law) is to claim that the EULA illegally "ties" the software to Apple's own hardware. However, making a claim about tying is quite complicated, and it seems unlikely that Psystar would prevail. This seems unfortunate for the market -- as getting some additional competition into the market would only help drive innovation. But, under the current law, it's difficult to see how Psystar can win.